this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2024
21 points (58.7% liked)

World News

38529 readers
2154 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
21
US aid group admits Gaza convoy was taken over by unvetted people before IDF struck them (www.timesofisrael.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
56 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A US-based aid group admitted Friday that a group of individuals — who the Israeli military says were armed — took control of an aid convoy in the southern Gaza Strip the day before, without the organization having vetted them or coordinated the matter with the Israel Defense Forces.

The military said Thursday that it struck the gunmen, killing them while not harming aid workers.

According to the IDF, Hamas operatives frequently try to hijack aid deliveries.

The IDF had said on Thursday that a convoy of aid trucks from the American Near East Refugee Aid (Anera) organization entered the southern Rafah area with Israeli coordination. It said that during the drive, it identified a group of gunmen taking over a vehicle at the front of the convoy and beginning to lead it. The IDF described the act as a hijacking attempt.

Shortly afterward, the IDF said it was able to determine that it could strike just the car with the gunmen, without harming the rest of the convoy, and so it carried out a strike, killing at least four.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 weeks ago (24 children)

Times of Israel + IOF as sources is an instant red flag, and no matter what happened in this single incident let’s keep talking about the fact that there’s a genocide going out carried out by apartheid settler colonialists who want to kill every single Palestinian on this planet. We need a ceasefire now and an end to the colonization.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 weeks ago

The "group of individuals" was the local movement company. They were assisting getting to the destination and there was no evidence that they made any hostile actions. That's what ANERA says in this article even. So they didn't admit to any of the made up nonsense that IDF or this Times of Israel article is claiming.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

First, these yahoos have no credibility after repeatedly lying and covering their criminal asses, so just from it's sources, this very neat explanation is suspect from the get go.

Second, the very framing of the situation (unknown gunmen hijackers) is itself highly loaded and designed to make the Israelis and their enablers to feel OK about an attack on an aid convoy. It is meant to convey certainty that these were nefarious Nazgûl that just had to be taken out. For all we know, they could just as well be non-hamas good Samaritan actors trying to help the aid workers navigate the ruins of the bombed out ghetto because there is a famine going on. We have no way of knowing without an independent investigation. But that's impossible because Netanyahu's political survival depends on a forever war.

Third, there is obviously here the narrative of the moral army, that only takes necessary action, very carefully etc. This narrative seems to only come up when non-palestinians are involved, as is the case here, because Palestinian lives simply don't really matter to them. Again, notice how there is zero information or concern about who the dead actually were and what their motivations and behaviour actually was. They simply don't matter: they were Palestinians.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Given IDF's less-than-stellar behavior so far, I'm going to remain skeptical until we know for sure that the aid workers in the rest of the convoy are alive and well.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

No need to wait. Here's their statement: https://www.anera.org/press/anera-convoy-attacked-en-route-to-emirati-red-crescent-hospital-four-killed/

No Anera staff were harmed, though one Anera employee, who was in the second vehicle, witnessed the incident at close range.

Despite this attack, the remainder of the convoy continued its mission and successfully delivered the critical aid to the hospital. Anera has coordinated with the United Arab Emirates 24 prior shipments for the Emirati Red Crescent Hospital since May.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago

Here's the key bit, IMO:

The four community members were neither vetted nor coordinated in advance, and Israeli authorities allege that the lead car was carrying numerous weapons. Every initial report from those at the scene indicate that no weapons were present.

Sounds a lot like the scandal around the "Collateral Murder" tapes. Unidentified people on ground and low level personnel "identify" weapons = dead civilians.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks. Nice to see some good news for once.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

These Fuckers made the exact same excuse when they struck the World Central Kitchen convoy back in April.

All their rhetorical damage control speaks exactly like the Kremlin.

Even if it turns out true, boy, have they lost all trust.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Reported by Iarael, the paragon of truth. /s

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

There is no true reporting in a war zone. The only people with access and reach are the conflict parties, both of which have a strong incentive to lie.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

Yes there can be true reporting in a war zone. The probem here is Israel has refused to allow any foreign journalists into Gaza or the West Bank ... leaving Palestinians as the only source outside of Israeli news sources. Then Israel targeted and murdered over 100 Palestinian journalists, so now very few are there to tell their side of the story.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I can't place exactly which variant of the no true Scotsman fallacy this is.

Anyway here is a list of some of the most impactful and amazing journalists in history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_correspondents

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

it's not a no true Scotsman fallacy, it's the literal fact that the IDF has laid siege to Gaza, refused entry to any foreign journalists, lead targeted strikes against those who were still in Gaza, killing the journalists and destroying their equipment, do you think that these war corespondents had some plaentier to scry over the wars they reported on or something?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

If course what you're saying is true but you're barking under the wrong tree, that's not what OP is saying.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I won't believe this story until a neutral source like Hamas or Al Jazeera confirms it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

What makes you think Hamas and Al Jazeera are neutral?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Lookie here boys, a wooooosh in the wild!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

Because they come down on the side of the Palestinians every time, and I don't want facts to get in the way of how I feel about this.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Do you support the rape and torture camp sde teiman that Israel runs?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Wtf does that have to do with anything here?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

This is a post where the obvious intent is to whitewash an attempt to murder aid workers by the IDF. Something that continually happens time and time again with every aid group because Israel explicitly doesn't want the aid coming in.

Questioning the motives of the poster trying to justify yet another atrocity is appropriate.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Then why are you trying to provide cover for a country actively engaged in systemized rape, torture, and Genocide?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There’s no genocide going on. It’s a war against an extremely deeply entrenched enemy in a densely populated urban environment.

systemized rape, torture

Rape and torture have happened, but are not systemic.

Israel does questionable and bad things, for sure. However it’s not the most evil state ever, that it’s often depicted as.

Nuance, truth, and perspective of the other side are important in this conflict.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Any country that intentionally withholds food, medicine, and potable water from a population it considers problematic is a nation intentionally committing genocide.

It is, in fact, the most common, and efficient, form of genocide ever.

That is just one of the reasons the ICC, the organization literally with the legal authority to determine of some thing is genocide or not determined that Israel is plausibly committing genocide.

You like to talk about truth and nuance a lot. Forgive me if I trust the literal genocide determining organization and not the self confident black and white statement og some asshole on the internet that loves to talk about nuance except when it comes to their own statements.

As to the systemic system of rape and torture, why don't you read Israels OWN fucking reporting on Sde Teiman.

Any nation that murders at least 100,000 children is fucking evil. And those are not Hamas's numbers. Those are the Lancet medical journals numbers. I'm not saying they are the most evil, as that would maybe be the British Empire, off the top of my head.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Any nation that murders at least 100,000 children is fucking evil. And those are not Hamas’s numbers. Those are the Lancet medical journals numbers.

That number is an estimate in an opinion piece, not a peer reviewed article. There’s no factual basis. The authors have already regretted putting the numbers in there.

People under 18 are not all children. Young adults of 17 definitely aren’t children like 3 year olds. Plenty of teenagers in Gaza are members of armed groups and participating in the fighting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

It's not an opinion piece. It was labeled a correspondence, and isn't peer reviewed, but the methodology for measuring dead in conflicts where the ability to make such counts is, and they used the conservative side of those calculations. The authors didn't express regret, merely that some people made claims the article didn't make.

Such methods are required, because Israel has intentionally bombed every hospital in Gaza to make counting the dead difficult, if not impossible, then insulting the methods required to actually estimate the dead. It sure would be nice if Israel didn't intentionally destroy all civilian medical infrastructure and send many of the doctors to a torture camp so we could have some actual numbers.

But, that's the point, isn't it? That's also the point of my comment you didn't bother addressing at all because you know there is no moral defense, even though you're willing to try and justify the murder of children.

Concentrating people in an enclosed area, and removing their access to food, water, and medicine is both the most common and the most efficient method governments have used historically engaged in the process of genocide.

And starvation kills children first, with the youngest dying the earliest.

It isn't astounding that you (presumably, based on your instance) are from a country whose highest proportion of people charged with antisemitism are Jewish people protesting the genocide.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That is just one of the reasons the ICC, the organization literally with the legal authority to determine of some thing is genocide or not determined that Israel is plausibly committing genocide.

That is a misrepresentation of what the ICJ ruled. You can’t even tell apart the ICJ and the ICC, it seems. You can’t even get the organization right.

Here you can hear the President of the ICJ explain what is meant by plausible.

“At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which South Africa wishes to see protected exist,” said the ICJ. “It need only decide whether the rights claimed by South Africa, and for which it is seeking protection, are plausible. “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.”

Plausible only refers to the right of South Africa to bring this case to the ICJ.

the ICJ had only ruled that Gaza Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide - in other words, that it had been dealing with a complex and somewhat abstract legal argument.

A day later, Joan Donoghue - now retired from the ICJ - appeared on the BBC’s HARDtalk programme and explicitly tried to end the debate by setting out what the court had done. “It did not decide - and this is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media... that the claim of genocide was plausible,” said the judge. “It did emphasise in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what the court decided.”

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You're right about the ICJ vs ICC which is a mistake I don't ordinarily make. My only execute for that is I woke up in the middle of the night from a migraine.

Your quotes however are extremely cherry picked, and your description of what they mean is absolutely wrong.

Part of the case was about establishing South Africa's right to bring the case, but part of it was to determine the plausibility of the charge.

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocide-gaza-palestinians-south-africa

The International Court of Justice has found it is "plausible" that Israel has committed acts that violate the Genocide Convention. In a provisional order delivered by the court's president, Joan Donoghue, the court said Israel must ensure "with immediate effect" that its forces not commit any of the acts prohibited by the convention.

Donoghue said the court cannot make a final determination right now on whether Israel is guilty of genocide. But she said that given the deteriorating situation in Gaza, the court has jurisdiction to order measures to protect Gaza's population from further risk of genocide.

But, I'm sure NPR is Hamas, right?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Since when does the West Bank have restrictions on Journalists entering?

You don’t believe the president of the court you cite, okay then.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

I literally posted a link, so others don't have to determine of over cherry picked my quote that shows my assertion.

You don't believe anything that goes counter to your love for an apartheid government.

load more comments
view more: next ›